2007 Supreme(SC) 1642

2007(8) Supreme 510
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. — Petitioners
versus
Kagajkal Thikadar Sramik Union & Ors. — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 8601 of 2001
Decided on : 14-12-2007

Important Point
It is settled position that before sorting out the controversy, the authority is free to take interim arrangement pending final decision and in such matters it is not desirable for the courts to interfere and take a decision as if there is no competent authority for the same.

Headnote:Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam rules, 1971 – Rule 25(2)(v) – Payment of equal and similar wages to contract labourers as given to regular employees – Validity – Respondent 1 a trade union on behalf of 34 contract labourers filed a representation before labour officer for implementation of rule 25(2)(v)(a) of rules – Labour commissioner on a report by Assistant labour commissioner examining nature of job being performed by contract labourers and regular employees passed an interim order allowing existing condition of wages and other facilities to continue till further evaluation and a final settlement was arrived at – Writ petition – Dismissed – Writ appeal – Allowed by High Court directing appellant mill to give equal pay and other benefits to contract labourers as that of regular employees – Appeal – Direction of labour commissioner made it clear that it was only an interim arrangement till final decision was taken – However High Court after knowing of factual position including fact that Labour Commissioner had called for a report and issue was under consideration, stepped into shoes of Labour Commissioner perused materials from records including report of Assistant Labour Commissioner, and arrived at a final conclusion on merits and directed appellant-Mill to provide all benefits to contract labourers on par with regular workers as if it was appropriate authority - When competent authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner, ceased matter, instructed his subordinate to inspect mill and submit a report with regard to actual state of affairs between contract labourers and regular employees of the Mill, Division Bench ought not to have ventured roving inquiry and decide issue leaving appropriate authority in a lurch - Proper course was to direct authority concerned to decide issue expeditiously after affording opportunity to both parties - Though, the Single Judge had rightly disposed of writ petition and in view of fact that matter had been ceased by Labour Commissioner, Division Bench committed an error in deciding same on merits and issuing positive direction to Mill as if it was a proper authority – High Court held not justified in passing impugned order – Appeal allowed. (Paras 5,6,7)

       (1985) 1 SCC 630 relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

       Respondent 1 a trade union on behalf of 34 contract labourers filed a representation before labour officer for implementation of rule 25(2)(v)(a) of rules. Labour commissioner on a report by Assistant labour commissioner examining nature of job being performed by contract labourers and regular employees passed an interim order allowing existing condition of wages and other facilities to continue till further evaluation and a final settlement was arrived at. Writ petition there against was dismissed. However Writ appeal was allowed by High Court directing appellant mill to give equal pay and other benefits to contract labourers as that of regular employees.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that Direction of labour commissioner made it clear that it was only an interim arrangement till final decision was taken. However High Court after knowing of factual position including fact that Labour Commissioner had called for a report and issue was under consideration, stepped into shoes of Labour Commissioner perused materials from records including report of Assistant Labour Commissioner, and arrived at a final conclusion on merits and directed appellant-Mill to provide all benefits to contract labourers on par with regular workers as if it was appropriate authority. When competent authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner, ceased matter, instructed his subordinate to inspect mill and submit a report with regard to actual state of affairs between contract labourers and regular employees of the Mill, Division Bench ought not to have ventured roving inquiry and decide issue leaving appropriate authority in a lurch. Proper course was to direct authority concerned to decide issue expeditiously after affording opportunity to both parties. Though, Single Judge had rightly disposed of writ petition and in view of fact that matter had been ceased by Labour Commissioner, Division Bench committed an error in deciding same on merits and issuing positive direction to Mill as if it was a proper authority. High Court held not justified in passing impugned order. Appeal was allowed.